Two artists from Phoenix, Arizona are facing 6 months in jail and heavy fines for refusing to create custom artworks promoting same-sex weddings.
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, are required by Phoenix law to create artwork for same-sex wedding ceremonies because they “cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation.”
According to Life Site News, “Not only are the Christian women threatened with jail time and fines should they refuse to create artwork celebrating gay ‘marriage’ because of Phoenix law, they could also be prosecuted for publishing a statement on their website explaining that their religious convictions prohibit them from doing so.”
The Court of Appeals ruled that Duka and Koski’s case was “one of a blanket refusal of service to the LGBTQ community,” despite the fact that the women were willing to serve any customer regardless of “sexual orientation.”
As Christians, the women declined to produce custom messages endorsing events that violated their religious convictions, however the court ruled that their artistic services were not “entitled to First Amendment free speech protections.”
See also:
http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/ca ... of-phoenix
From the High Learned Honorable Court: BRUSH & NIB, et al. v. PHOENIX, Arizona Court of Appeals, 6/7/2018,
https://cases.justia.com/arizona/court- ... 1528381842:
Simply stated, if Appellants, as an economic entity, want to operate their for-profit business as a public accommodation, they cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation. It bears repeating that Section 18-4(B) regulates conduct, not speech. Accordingly, the conduct at issue is not the creation of words or images but the conduct of selling or refusing to sell merchandise — either pre-fabricated or designed to order — equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact
speech, is not speech. Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in “a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., slip op. at 10.
Although Section 18-4(B) regulates conduct, this is not the end our inquiry. Next, we must determine whether the conduct regulated by Section 18-4(B) is inherently expressive. Rumsfeld, 547 U.S. at 65. Conduct is entitled to full First Amendment protections if the “speaker” intended to convey a particularized message by the conduct and if, given the surrounding circumstances, there was a strong likelihood that the speaker’s
message would be understood by those who viewed it. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974). Like many similar cases decided in other jurisdictions, we find Appellants’ act of creating design-to-order wedding announcements, invitations, and the like is not inherently expressive.
The mere fact that Section 18-4(B) requires Appellants to comply with the law does not render their creation of design-to-order merchandise for same-sex weddings expressive conduct. The items Appellants would produce for a same-sex or opposite-sex wedding would
likely be indistinguishable to the public. Take for instance an invitation to the marriage of Pat and Pat (whether created for Patrick and Patrick, or Patrick and Patricia), or Alex and Alex (whether created for Alexander and Alexander, or Alexander and Alexa). This invitation would not differ in creative expression. Further, it is unlikely that a general observer would attribute a company’s product or offer of services, in compliance with the law, as indicative of the company’s speech or personal beliefs.
What a tub of shit.
